Disposed

Dodda Venkata Ratnam and Tripuramallu Gurunadham v. State of a.P., Rep. by its Principal

Telangana HC8 Mar 2018WP/25871/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court accepted the Government Pleader's submission that the trustee's term, fixed at two years under the Act which lapsed in 2010, rendered the proceedings invalid. Consequently, the court found no question on the continuing tenure of the trustee and disposed of the writ petition without further steps.

What did the court decide?

No order as to costs and the miscellaneous petitions filed in the writ petition shall stand closed.

Dodda Venkata Ratnam and Tripuramallu Gurunadham… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.25871 OF 2008

¶3

Dated:08.03.2018

¶4

Between:

¶5

Dodda Venkata Ratnam and Tripuramallu Gurunadham Chowltry, R.Agraharam, Guntur, rep., by its founder family member Tripuramallu Radhakrishna Murthy, S/o. Venkataratnam, aged about 76 years, Chowtra, Guntur

¶6

.. Petitioner

¶7

And

¶8

State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue (Endowments-I) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others .. Respondents

¶9

The Court made the following:

¶10

¶11

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶12

WRIT PETITION No.25871 OF 2008

¶13

ORDER:

¶14

Heard.

¶15

This Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Guntur District, in appointing the 5^th respondent as the trustee of the petitioner - Choultry, as illegal and contrary to the orders of the Government in G.O.Ms.No.1098 dated 11.09.2008, and sought for consequential direction that the trustee so appointed cannot interfere with the management of the petitioner – Choultry.

¶16

This Court, by order dated 26.11.2008, granted interim direction to the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession, enjoyment and management of the petitioner – Choultry and the said direction is in operation.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the interim order dated 26.11.2008, the trustee has not taken charge.

¶18

Learned Government Pleader for Endowments points out that the cause in the Writ Petition does not survive. The trustee was appointed in exercise of power under Section 15 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 (for short, ‘the Act’) and as per the provision in Section 17 (2) of the Act, every trustee appointed under Section 15 of the Act shall hold office for a period of two years. In the light of the same, the term of trustee, who was

¶19

¶20

appointed on 29.08.2008, lapsed in the year 2010 itself and therefore the said proceedings are no more valid and no further steps are taken.

¶21

In view of the fair submission, as the trustee ceased to be in office on account of completion of his tenure, the question of his continuing to be a trustee of the petitioner – Choultry does not arise.

¶22

The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶23

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, filed in this Writ Petition

¶24

shall stand closed.

¶25

____________________
P. NAVEEN RAO, J
Date:08.03.2018
KH

Dodda Venkata Ratnam and Tripuramallu Gurunadham v. State of a.P., Rep. by its Principal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dodda Venkata Ratnam and Tripuramallu Gurunadham v. State of a.P., Rep. by its Principal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Komma Raghavulu, Prakasam District and 4 Others Vs Prl Secy, Mines and Geology Dept, Hyderabad and 2 Others

Delta Refinery Limited, Hyd Vs Prl Secy, (Infra) Dept, Hyd and 3 Ot

Mahant Balveer Das Maharaj, Vs The State of Telangana

R Sai Reddy Vs Prl.Secy., Dept., Home, Hyd., and 5 Others

Nellore Sudhakar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sambhav Agro Industries, Vs The Commissioner and Director of Agriculture